As you seem to imply, the only way that the system will not be abused is if men put the needs of their family above their own wants and desires.
True. Is there any compulsion, moral, theological, or other, that she do so?Whether you mean to or not, I’m pretty sure you are misunderstanding most of the posters here. As I tried to point out earlier, just because a wife decides she freely wants to give the last say to her husband some/most/all of the time does not mean she is being treated badly or as though she is unequal.
I think you will see if you read my posts on this thread that I am not trying to claim that all women must obey their husbands. What I am trying to do is to get those who are appalled at the use of the word ‘submission’ to think about it a little bit more and realize its not a bad thing when understood correctly. I’m also trying to make people think about the effect that gender can play in a marriage. There are legitimate differences between men and women, which are naturally going to affect their relationsip in a marriage. So its a good thing to think about.
I was certainly not saying or implying that – I know you were not.
I would say two things:
I agree entirely!!
If the husband has all the power, then the wife in a very real way *is not *his equal.AngryAtheist8
Whether you mean to or not, I’m pretty sure you are misunderstanding most of the posters here. As I tried to point out earlier, just because a wife decides she freely wants to give the last say to her husband some/most/all of the time does not mean she is being treated badly or as though she is unequal.
Also, just because someone has something good to say about the idea of submission doesn’t mean they are ok with mistreating women, or that they believe women are inferior or deserve fewer rights etc. There is a middle ground and I haven’t seen anything from any of these posters that would imply they are on the extreme end of things, so I think you might be overreacting a little.
This is incorrect. They are equal, they just have differentent roles. Equal does not mean identical, despite what you may have gathered from other sources. Women have a specific role that, while differing from a man’s role, is absolutely not inferior to it.
Yes and some would like all of us to follow their view when the Church does not tell us too. This pushing is ridiculous. I have gone so many rounds on this topic and I keep telling myself to just leave as at times I end up being less than charitable when I respond.
Well said.Dear Maria, I am not saying that there is something wrong with a husband (or a wife) being the head of the household. I am just saying that it is not Catholic doctrine and it should not be presented as such. According to Catholic teaching on marriage, both spouses are equal, they have the same obligations and they are called to love and respect one another. I do not know which civil marriage vows you used. I got married in the Catholic Church and used one of the forms from the Roman Missal. There was no mention of obedience to my husband. I am not using this as a yardstick, but simply making a statement. As far as St. Paul’s words are concerned, Catholics do not believe in sola Scriptura. We rely on the Magisterium for its interpretation, so the fact the Magisterium did not elaborate on this passage from St. Paul in the same way some people in this thread do is relevant. The Catholic Church does not approve Biblical literalism. St. Paul also accepts slavery, but I hope that if you - or other people in this thread - ever encountered a slave, did not tell him/her to just go back to his master!
All I am trying to say is that Catholics have to follow Catholic teaching but have to obligation to believe a Protestant author on marriage. If it works for your marriage and others, fine. Just do not present it as God’s plan. In my marriage, we make decisions together. If we disagree, we pray and wait and then talk it out again. If we cannot reach an agreement, we try to compromise, ask for advice, pray some more and then decide together. Sometimes, one of us decides to leave the decision to the other for practical reasons (because one of us just has more knowledge or experience on a given issue), certainly not because one is male and the other female!
However, if men make the ultimate decision, but men and women are equal, does that mean that all people are equal but some people (men) are more equal than others?
How does that make any sense?
Yes, like Caesar Augustus was equal to the Roman Senate (first among equals indeed
).To be fair, that is not necessarily the case. You are defining equality as having equal authority, but that does not hold if one does not privilege authority as something critical to one’s sense of self. One can be not inferior and still not have equal authority, because the equality being discussed is at an ontological level, not a legal one.
We choose to have people having more authority like a Prime Minister or a President and yes in a democracy we are equal to our PM or President. In a marriage a wife can expressly decide that her husband has authority over her. She would then be entitled to revoke that authority. It is quite another thing when it is said that a wife must submit to her husband/her husband has authority over her. That is inequality.
Well, I’m not, but I suppose I could see why you would think so if your definition if equality is only concerning amounts of authority. I’m saying that there are a number of roles to be filled by either husband or wife, and they work out equally in the end, with the husband tempering his authority with love and the wife tempering her possible desire to be the authority with respect for the husband’s role as head of household. But I do like the response given a bit earlier in this thread in response to something I’d said… Will quote in a second.
Okay, I’ll concede this, you explained what I think better than I did! I was mostly responding to what I assumed was a either-he-or-I attitude, as that’s what many comments struck of as. I guess I’m just too used to people being brainwashed by the feminists and thought that that was what you were saying!Dear Maria, I am not saying that there is something wrong with a husband (or a wife) being the head of the household. I am just saying that it is not Catholic doctrine and it should not be presented as such. According to Catholic teaching on marriage, both spouses are equal, they have the same obligations and they are called to love and respect one another. I do not know which civil marriage vows you used. I got married in the Catholic Church and used one of the forms from the Roman Missal. There was no mention of obedience to my husband. I am not using this as a yardstick, but simply making a statement. As far as St. Paul’s words are concerned, Catholics do not believe in sola Scriptura. We rely on the Magisterium for its interpretation, so the fact the Magisterium did not elaborate on this passage from St. Paul in the same way some people in this thread do is relevant. The Catholic Church does not approve Biblical literalism. St. Paul also accepts slavery, but I hope that if you - or other people in this thread - ever encountered a slave, did not tell him/her to just go back to his master!
All I am trying to say is that Catholics have to follow Catholic teaching but have to obligation to believe a Protestant author on marriage. If it works for your marriage and others, fine. Just do not present it as God’s plan. In my marriage, we make decisions together. If we disagree, we pray and wait and then talk it out again. If we cannot reach an agreement, we try to compromise, ask for advice, pray some more and then decide together. Sometimes, one of us decides to leave the decision to the other for practical reasons (because one of us just has more knowledge or experience on a given issue), certainly not because one is male and the other female!
Good point.
Are you referring to people who advocate women having the same social and legal rights as men?
